Help understanding the "Keto Camps"
40DayFit
Posts: 246 Member
I'm reading what I can about keto science & philosophy without purchasing a book just yet--mainly bc. I want to be sure the book I pick is based on solid science and not just a "camp" pushing it's position.
Right now I'm seeing some real push-pull between two approaches to keto (for fat loss):
1) Set amount of grams of carbs (usually 20g net) and set amount of grams of protein (usually more like what you'd see if you set MFP macros to 30-35% protein), and the rest in fats, with a calorie deficit--eat all the protein; no need to eat all the fats.
2) Set amount of grams of carbs (usually 20g net or total if diabetic), ceiling of grams of protein (usually like what you'd see if you set MFP macros to 20-25% protein), and the rest in fats--no need to eat all the proteins, but definitely eat all the fats.
If I'm not mistaken, the first approach matches Phinney et. al.'s work with the "new" Atkins. I'm not quite sure which keto science person advocates the "all the fats, watch the protein" approach. I *think* the logic behind approach 1 is that your own body fat will supply the fats your body needs to convert into ketones, so no need to supply great amounts of dietary fats; gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to glucose) is demand-driven, not supply-driven, and is *always* happening in the body, so no need to fear keto-disruption from "excess protein." Instead, the protein is to support skeletal muscle retention and growth and is consumed at the levels required by your "ideal weight" body. As you approach your "ideal weight," you'll eat more fat calories to replace the fat your overweight body used to provide.
I *think* the logic behind approach 2 is that your keto-adapted body is dependent upon ketones from fat, and "excess protein" will convert to keto-disruptive glucose via gluconeogenesis, so watch the protein and keep them fats coming! And I *think* the idea is that regardless of body size, these macro percentages will remain the same.
I hope I'm not confusing anyone with this! I'd love some insights from those of you who've been at this for some time and have read and reflected on the different approaches and science behind them. Someone mentioned some FB groups and how assertively they promote their own approaches to keto. It's confusing and frustrating to not understand the "why" behind these approaches to be able to decide which one best suits one's own goals or philosophy.
Thanks for any conversation on this!
Right now I'm seeing some real push-pull between two approaches to keto (for fat loss):
1) Set amount of grams of carbs (usually 20g net) and set amount of grams of protein (usually more like what you'd see if you set MFP macros to 30-35% protein), and the rest in fats, with a calorie deficit--eat all the protein; no need to eat all the fats.
2) Set amount of grams of carbs (usually 20g net or total if diabetic), ceiling of grams of protein (usually like what you'd see if you set MFP macros to 20-25% protein), and the rest in fats--no need to eat all the proteins, but definitely eat all the fats.
If I'm not mistaken, the first approach matches Phinney et. al.'s work with the "new" Atkins. I'm not quite sure which keto science person advocates the "all the fats, watch the protein" approach. I *think* the logic behind approach 1 is that your own body fat will supply the fats your body needs to convert into ketones, so no need to supply great amounts of dietary fats; gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to glucose) is demand-driven, not supply-driven, and is *always* happening in the body, so no need to fear keto-disruption from "excess protein." Instead, the protein is to support skeletal muscle retention and growth and is consumed at the levels required by your "ideal weight" body. As you approach your "ideal weight," you'll eat more fat calories to replace the fat your overweight body used to provide.
I *think* the logic behind approach 2 is that your keto-adapted body is dependent upon ketones from fat, and "excess protein" will convert to keto-disruptive glucose via gluconeogenesis, so watch the protein and keep them fats coming! And I *think* the idea is that regardless of body size, these macro percentages will remain the same.
I hope I'm not confusing anyone with this! I'd love some insights from those of you who've been at this for some time and have read and reflected on the different approaches and science behind them. Someone mentioned some FB groups and how assertively they promote their own approaches to keto. It's confusing and frustrating to not understand the "why" behind these approaches to be able to decide which one best suits one's own goals or philosophy.
Thanks for any conversation on this!
0
Replies
-
I am (was?) of the first camp but I've read several people here say that eating all the fats helps keep them satisfied, helps them sleep better, and keeps the hungries away. I thought I'd give it a try and eat all the fats but I've gotten so terrible at logging lately I couldn't measure it. It's a new month and I'm going to stay on track and I decided that means keeping my cals at or below goal, my carbs at or below goal, mod protein and fats to fill the gaps. Not all the fat. I can see the point however, I want to keep my body burning my own fat and I do believe (no scientific fact) that if I don't intake the fat my body will burn my own once I'm in ketosis. This is all from my learning here from these fine, educated people and what makes sense to me. No books, no science. Just trusting my gut.2
-
I make sure to stick to a strict macro ratio because i'm doing Keto for the Cancer prevention(and to lose about 100 pds). So I have to follow it like people who use it for seizure control. I do 75% fat, 20% protein and 5% carbs. I have a calorie goal that is a 'slow loss' number and make sure I do that or a few hundred less a day and just focus on my percentages. I used the keto calculator to figure out goals.1
-
I lean toward #1 and don't sweat protein too much because I don't have any medical conditions that would cause it to be an issue. I eat plenty of fat and am not hungry, but do have a deficit pulled from fat for weight loss.2
-
I stumbled upon this perfectly written explanation on RD Dikemans facebook page the other day in the comments. I had to screenshot it because it's so clearly explained here I can't imagine it leaves any room for confusion.
There was also this graphic that he shared that puts visuals to how the source of the total burned fat changes as we lose bodyfat. Reducing the fat in order to lose bodyfat does NOT make it a low fat diet. The energy comes from fat whether you eat a lot of fat or not as long as you don't eat too many carbs. But, you DO have to eat enough to feel satisfied so you're not trying to nibble all day long. There's no need to be eating every couple hours when you're burning bodyfat. Or you won't be burning body fat.
This graphic assumes a person will increase carbs as they go. If that's not your plan, then that figure would stay constant as well.6 -
Yes!! @Sunny_Bunny_, this is EXACTLY the kind of clarity I have been looking for! What's more, it makes the kind of intuitive sense that @RowdysLady mentioned. Thank you so much! This explanation not only makes sense to me, it seems liveable and has the end to fatloss already in mind. Still ketosis, but adjusted for what the body needs across the fatloss and maintenance stages.
Going to look up RD Dikeman now.1 -
I should point out that graphic at the bottom does have percentages being used...
In trying to be less confusing, there are still good info sources being confusing. Lol
That protein percentage might not stay 20% but it would probably change a bit as lean body mass changes with weight loss. I doubt it would change too much, and it's really not a big deal AT ALL to be over or under by even 30 or 40 grams (maybe more) on any given day assuming you're not T2D or pre diabetic and not eating it all in one sitting.
The big point really is... there is absolutely no need to specifically eat fat, the way people push fat bombs and such. Fat doesn't make a person burn more fat... absence of carbs does. But you can choose where your body gets the fat it uses for energy. Fat bombs? Or your gut? Eat enough real foods that contain fat to keep you satisfied and it's just that simple.3 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »In trying to be less confusing, there are still good info sources being confusing. Lol
MFP being one of those good sources. It uses percentages at least so far as setting macro targets/goals. One just has to look beyond the percentage though because MFP does also reflect grams. I think the paid version of MFP at least allows 1% increments versus the 5% in the free version.
Nice explanations up there ^^ though.
2 -
For me, I've always found I lose better when I eat above 60% of my daily calories from fat. It's not a science thing just a personal experience thing, and the calories don't matter as much as the macros do.
I get the argument that I have fat on my body that it can use for energy if I'm not eating my full fat macro but I feel dubious about that only because my body still clearly uses stored fat for energy even when I'm eating a full days calories with a high (eg 70%) fat macro. If that's the case, why eat less and feel hungry to achieve the same result?
Some days I will want to eat less - and that's fine, I might have a low cal day but my macros will usually still have fat at 60% plus.
It feels like the water thing to me - if you're retaining water, upping your fluids can actually help you flush it out. I'm retaining fat and eating a good fat percentage seems to help flush it out.
Bodies are all different though. There are occasional days when I don't feel lie I can tolerate high fat and I know a day or two of higher protein macros isn't going to harm me. Some people feel more comfortable eating that way in general.
I don't see the need for 'camps' or arguments on this - what works for you works for you and if you try one and find yourself struggling it's good to know there's another option to try. Both are just variations of the same thing and I'd imagine both are perfectly successful in the end, it's just finding your own level.
I'll also note that I don't use fat bombs etc and have never found they satiated me. I don't force fat just eat what comes in whole food sources like avocado, meat, and butter for cooking.
Good luck!3 -
moonlights wrote: »I get the argument that I have fat on my body that it can use for energy if I'm not eating my full fat macro but I feel dubious about that only because my body still clearly uses stored fat for energy even when I'm eating a full days calories with a high (eg 70%) fat macro. If that's the case, why eat less and feel hungry to achieve the same result?
I completely agree. The advice above specifically notes that if hunger isn't being satisfied, it could be there isn't enough fat in the meal. It's definitely important to eat enough that we can get to the next meal time. Feeling the need to snack between meals is a big clue I see sometimes that might suggest the previous meal didn't meet needs. Feeling tired and having no energy, assuming electrolytes have been considered is another clue that shows up sometimes.
Eating about 60% of calories from fat is what the calculators gives me with a 20% calorie deficit to lose weight, so you're pretty much right on track it sounds like. Since it would be 70-75% for weight maintenance.1 -
Thanks! This is such a great explanation!2
-
Bump0
